cigchat_clear_integration_shopify

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description takes full responsibility. It clearly labels the operation as 'DESTRUCTIVE: irreversible', calls out the need for a confirmation step, and states the required token scope. This is strong disclosure of behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact (two sentences) and front-loads the most critical information—purpose and destructiveness—while preserving essential usage/safety details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it (with confirmation flow), and prerequisites (scope). It fully supports safe usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema already describes the `confirm` parameter, the description adds important context about the two-step invocation pattern—calling without it first to get an impact statement, then passing the token after approval. This enriches the semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'Clear the config of shopify integration' with the HTTP DELETE endpoint, clearly identifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_integration_shopify and set_integration_shopify.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage instructions: 'Call once without `confirm` to get an impact statement first' and requires 'Manage Team' scope. However, it doesn't explicitly compare against alternative tools (e.g., other clear_integration_* tools) other than implying the target resource.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.